Memeorandum

January 23, 2007

Quick Hits On Fitzgerald And Wells

Here in the Pedant's Corner we are lodging objections to the opening statements.

First, Fitzgerald, in an effort to establish Libby's motive to lie, claims that Libby committed felony perjury and obstruction in order to save his job (and we applaud the liveblogging effort of Marcy Wheeler, the Empty Wheel):

Talks about WH [White House] telling everyone anyone would be involved would be fired.

And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want
to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will
be taken care of.

If somebody
did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take
the appropriate action.

Libby was an experienced lawyer. As best he should have been able to judge, he had not broken any law by leaking Plame's identity, which was Bush's original criteria. Although the press has had fun twisting Bush's statement to something broader, Fitzgerald may have a hard time making "involved" stick once the defense pushes back.

Pursuant to a request from the Department of Justice, I am instructing you to preserve and maintain the following:

“[F]or the time period February 1, 2002 to the present, all documents, including without limitation all electronic records, telephone records of any kind (including but not limited to any records that memorialize telephone calls having been made), correspondence, computer records, storage devices, notes, memoranda, and diary and calendar entries, that relate in any way to:

1. Former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, and/or his wife’s purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency;

2. Contacts with any member or representative of the news media about Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, and/or his wife’s purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency; and

3. Contacts with reporters Knut Royce, Timothy M. Phelps, or Robert D. Novak, or any individual(s) acting directly or indirectly, on behalf of these reporters.”

Point (2) seems clear enough - "any member or representative of the news media" certainly extends beyond Novak. Darn - it would have been a good defense point if true.

It is fascinating thouugh...to have Fitz advocating for the coveted "frogmarch" hopeful. Of course, if Fitz doesn't believe this then he'd have to admit he was wrong...and then let Libby go and go after the true villain Rove.

If all the major actors just walked out and said that any incriminating statement was a mis-statement where are we...?

(maybe in Iraq... spending billions of dollars every few days, and content to continue in this way in perpetuity, at least until we can hand-off this disaster to someone in the other party and blame them for whatever happens).

I think you're the one without a handle on the facts Maguire-here's Scott McClellan-speaking on behalf of the White House on September 29, 2003:

"Q: Scott, has anyone -- has the president tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

[...]

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

So if Fitzgerald said the White House said it would fire leakers-he was 100% correct.

I happen to have recently (as in within the past 3 days) checked for, downloaded, and read ALL of the White House stuff that hit on the word or phrase "Plame," "CIA agent," and "Wilson's wife," including President Bush's statments. Have 'em all here, with URL's, concatenated into one 153 kB text file.

I noticed a studious application of the word "classified" in each presser, albeit not in each and every utterance. Punishment for criminal activity, use your imagination if the activity isn't criminal (the WH ducked the question repeatedly).

I think W was the leaker, call me contrary/crazy/creative/and correct:

- the President's supporters are pinning this on Armitage because W couldn't possibly shoulder the blame for being the leaker.
- in fact I'd say he outsourced the Plame leak to Cheney and Libby, asking them to spread the "declassified" leak to spread responsibility.
- then he made them the scapegoats for the leak, by demanding Sacrifice to the Presidency.
- I'm really only developing what Libby's people said today....

I can easily see people making Sacrifices for the President, I can see the President asking too much, and I can see someone (Libby!) eventually telling the truth in extremis. Hasn't happened yet though.

But Libby lied, he could save himself by telling the truth about how the Bush Administration criminalized politics -- by leaking Valerie Plame's covert identity and lying to the nation about what they did, but he protects the President while playing the victim.

"...If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

So if Fitzgerald said the White House said it would fire leakers-he was 100% correct.

Try your reading comprehension skills again, Don. The antecedent to the pronoun "it" that is boldaced is not "leaked" but "outed the CIA agent". Which, it turns out, nobody in the "administration" (whether white house or state dept or any other government official) did.

All that crap about "fire whoever did it" (whatever the hell it is is open to interpretation) is part and parcel of running a whitewashing operation.

The sham was to use a clean bill from an investigation that would inevitably return with "no outing of a covert agent" as proof of absence of what the Democrats were casting as a political dirty trick, or worse. The White House desperately wanted that clean bill of health as a preservative for the "no leaks" and "we run clean politics" reputation.

At his point it doesn't matter - the President's defenders and his detractors are entrenched, facts be damned, this is war (and all that). The vast majority of the public doesn't really give a hoot, this story is so far below the radar that it isn't funny.

To be fair, I think that calling out the Democrats for falsely accuing "you outed a covert agent" would be a good thing too. And you'll never get to the bottom of the "Who started it" argument - IMO, they are all dirty shysters. Just some are dirtier than others.

"jerry, why do I hear the theme from "The Twilight Zone" whenever you post?"

Because you are a politicized advocate Clarice, I don't hold this against you I admire your advocacy. I've favorably compared you to Novak on several occasions.

From a reality-based perspecitve, I'd defend myself by saying that there are "known unknowns and unknown unknowns" - paraphrasing Rumsfeld-the-Bush-scapegoat (you know, he's not alone there) - just because we don't know something it doesn't mean they haven't been aggressively hiding it from us (paraphrasing Henry the K).

As to Knut and Royce, they were two Newsday reporters who got a leak confirming that Plame had classified status and published on July 21, 2003. Whoever leaked that committed a no-no, but we all moved on (it was probabaly a Wilso-philic leak from CIA or State).

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's employment, said the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures.

"It's a shot across the bow to these people, that if you talk we'll take your family and drag them through the mud as well," he said in an interview.

"Q: Scott, has anyone -- has the president tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

[...]

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

I'll bet that the president would say that he would fire any administration official who betrayed the US in battle against aliens from outer space, too. You may see the lack of firing of space-alien-enemy agents as evidence of W lying about this, but I'd put my money that the reason that the president hasn't fired anyone for betraying the country to enemy aliens from outer space that we are at war with is that a) there are no aliens from outer space; b) we are not at war with the non-existent aliens; and c) there is no administration official who betrayed us to the non-existent aliens who are not at war with us.

The Smirking Chimp is riding point. Libby's pointing the finger at Cheney and Rove. The American people are pointing Bush toward the
electric chair. The Righty-neocon-fascists have
no point. But you losers are arguing over how many fairies fit on the point of a needle.

Ah, what the heck, dig in. Make it easy on the world to spot you and your pathology.

"Sorry, jerry, W. couldn't have been the "leaker" as long as he was/is president. Just like if Bill Clinton has sex with Hillary Clinton, he's not committing adultery."

Well, here's the thing. If W fessed up to leakning Plame's ID (in my euphoric worldview) it might not have been a crime (there's some requirement to check with the classifying agency, but the President may have some super-authority.

But if he outsourced the responsibility, then there'd need to be a prior declassification (and there was none), some secret info might be declassified by the VP (who seems to have been given authority in late spring 2003) but releasing information about a covert agent is not covered by this - as I've come to understand it.

So, if Libby's leaking Plame there'd have to be some Presidential action protecting/allowing this, and there isn't AFAIK.

- when did the Bush WH have a 'we run clean politics' reputation? --
Oh yeah, Bush White House, we're gonna drag politics into the gutter.
Sheesh, somebody missed the "New Tone in Washington" meme. Blasted media can't even get that big one out in working order.

I asked when they had the reputation, given that Rove was one of the most hated/feared/legendary (hit) man in politics during the 2000 election- an election BushCo was accused of stealing.

So I'm asking who you think was going to pay attention to the "Clean Bill of Health" you think Bush was so 'desperately' after?

I think he would have been happy with no investigation, but he did it to shut up the critics calling for one.

I think criticizing a critic- especially one like Wilson- is perfectly valid.

Jerry- read the transcripts from today. Unless you think Grossman is a liar covering for Bush, the idea that this was some grand leak punishing a brave whistleblower seems to be disappearing under the testimony that this was gossip about a very small CIA spouse sponsored report.

How today's trial gets you seeing an even BIGGER conspiracy is beyond me.

OK, cboldt. You tell me who the "clean bill of health" was going to convince. The Democrats accusing him of outing a CIA agent?
Of the people making noise that Bush/Rove had outed a CIA agent, how many of them do you think cared if he actually did or not? I say most of them just enjoyed making the accusation.

Because it looks to me like they got a pretty clean bill of health whether they outed an agent, and it's gotten them nowhere. Those that will not be pleased are CERTAIN there is more to the story.

"How today's trial gets you seeing an even BIGGER conspiracy is beyond me."

But MayBee, ignoring my happy conspiracies, the crimes weren't committed by Grossman and he has rightly not been charged (today's testimony mainly shows that Libby had an interest in Wilson/Plame well before Novak's article in July, contrary to his defense), they were committed by a group of people who went to the press with Plame's ID in a comspiratorial manner - discussing as a group what they would release to the press.

But that is unfinished history, today's trial is only about Libby's incomprehensible lying to the the FBI and grand jury.

...but releasing information about a covert agent is not covered by this...

Covert agent?!?!? Who the heck could you possibly be talking about? Fitzgerald has said over and over that there was no covert agent, no one released any information about any covert agents, and this case doesn't have anything to do with any covert agents or releasing information about any covert agents. Pay attention, honey...

-- OK, cboldt. You tell me who the "clean bill of health" was going to convince. --

There is, without a doubt, a substantial voting block of average intelligence that values honest politicians, family values, etc. etc. etc. TO continue to appeal to that bloc, it's important to maintain a certain image.

Now, is a Republican ever going to be a "considered" candidate to a rabid Democrat? No. Nor the reverse. But that's not to say that a politician of either stripe is unconcerned about "image."

I think GWB would lose respect among some of his faithful, if he or his administration was caught in false denials. Me? I don't care if he's outing Plame to get even with that liar Wilson, but I bet some of his cheerleading squad would become disillusioned at an admission of that. I'm disillusioned on politics for more substantive reasons that outing the pretend secret agent parlor games. But I'll say this, Bush lost my trust over a series of false denials and BS sales pitches. Doesn't mean I don't agree with much of what he stands for, but I don't trust him for nuthin'.

today's testimony mainly shows that Libby had an interest in ... Plame well before Novak's article in July

*snort* Today's testimony mainly shows that a person who was Joe Wilson's college buddy, who worked with Valerie Plame when she was at the Greek embassy and he at the Turkish embassy a decade-and-a-half ago, who had been to the Wilsons' home, had an interest in Mrs. Wilson nee Plame well befere (years before) Novak's article.

I think this is the cleanest administration I can recall, cboldt.
I think for Corn to continue to refer to this as a "scandal" is--well, a scandal; and I think that the press still rather uniformly refers to this as the "CIA leak" case shows that the standards for a press card are terribly low.

Anybody that takes Corn seriously is stupid, lazy, paranoid, closed-minded, paranoid, or some combination of the above. The guy's a comedian, not a serious commentator. See also John Dean, and ... oh hell, pretty near the whole lot of them are useless.

It's hard work to get underneath the partisan advocacy and superficial crap that passes for "informing the public," but hard work is what it takes if you want to have a snowball's chance at getting useful facts.

But I'll say this, Bush lost my trust over a series of false denials and BS sales pitches. Doesn't mean I don't agree with much of what he stands for, but I don't trust him for nuthin'.

Well, fine. And that's really what I'm saying here. Some investigation that gave Bush a "clean bill of health" wasn't going to convince people he'd already lost-- it certainly hasn't gained your trust that this particular investigation has turned up a whole bunch of nothin'.

It was a small point of disagreement anyway. I don't think Bush wanted an investigation to get his squeaky clean reputation back. Because
a)I don't think he wanted an investigation b)he would surely have known that these investigations never really clear anything up and
c)I don't think he had a squeaky clean reputation, although I think it's fair to say much of what is/was said against him is/was undeserved.

I think Bush caved in to the critics, thinking it would shut them up. I hate almost all presidential/political investigations. I think they are more poison than good.

To be fair, I think that calling out the Democrats for falsely accuing "you outed a covert agent" would be a good thing too.

Oh what a crock. You accept the accusation of outing a covert agent for revenge was false . . . but don't like the phrasing in the denial? Acting as if there's some sort of moral equivalence there is a good indicator of needing a new compass. I actually have more time for the ditzy lefties who persist in seeing a grand conspiracy despite a total lack of evidence.

The Wilsons' CIA affiliations have to be one of the worst-kept secrets in CIA history. Wilson was giving speeches about it, reporters were talking about it, State Department officials were talking about it, and the White House came to the game LAST. The President never said "we'll fire anyone who participated in the gossip, however peripherally" . . . because he didn't MEAN that. (And he shouldn't have, because it'd be stupid.)

Further, if we're looking for the government personnel who were actually "involved in this" the list looks something like:

Joseph Wilson IV, intimately familiar with covert and classified procedures, and CIA family, who goes on a CIA mission and then writes an OpEd (spreading enemy disinformation in wartime, as it happens) to support the political candidate for whom he was staffing . . . and then falsely accuses others of outing his wife for revenge;

Valerie Plame Wilson, who supported and enabled her husband's efforts;

George Tenet, who was responsible for them;

Richard Armitage, who actually leaked the information (sloppily) by gossiping about a very highly classified memo;

Colin Powell, who was responsible for him;

Ari Fleischer, who blabbed to reporters on a subject he didn't understand (apparently after being told not to)

Amongst those with connections too tenuous to be considered "involved" are:

Karl Rove, who said "I heard that, too" instead of being perfectly noncommital to Novak, and possibly brought it up with Cooper after the fact; and finally,

Scooter Libby, who may or may not have volunteered the information to Judith Miller (or have been queried by her . . . it's impossible to tell).

And if the President ought to fire anyone, it's the folks on the first list. (Hey, how 'bout that?)

He in this for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for one I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby"

But sure enough, as soon as Wells says something that, if true or if logically possible would feed their BDS driven fantasies of Rove and/or Bush and/or Cheney swinging from a tree, he is automatically sainted into the Truth, Justice and American Way Hall of Fame (TJAWHoF), albeit in the Imaginary-Based Community.

Turner, you are a laugh a minute to me. Please don't stop posting to the ditzy lefties. You can post to me too, if you want. But I shant waste my time responding to your disingenuous and false construction of my rhetoric.

Grossman has no emails etc re the conversation with Libby (DoS policy requires their destruction after 90 days)

About the INR:
"Paragraph one addresses “allegation” that INR had played a role in Wilson’s trip. “It is clear, however, that INR was not Amb Wilsons’ POC in either the Dept. or the IC.” Nor was State a direct recipient of the report.nn”The reporting we have from his trip makes no mention of documents, fraudulent or otherwise.”

Another paragraph indicates that “Two CIA WMD analysts seem to be leading the charge on the issue” and that INR and State took strong issue with their dismissal of the Niger issue. "

Making a non-responsive post to to your disingenuous and false construction of my rhetoric.

A "non-responsive" response, eh? Whatever. And Dude, if you're gonna do the grade-school namecalling shtick, "liar liar pants on fire" works better. Doubling down on "disingenuous and false construction of my rhetoric" sounds constipated. (Still better than pretending a true denial is worse than a false accusation, though, so perhaps the diversion is warranted. As with Wells, I'm getting a bit of an education on lawyerly obfuscation.)